Hey guys, I'm Tristan. I'm a varsity debater at Sequoyah High School. The most important thing for you to do is weigh and state your impacts. Other than that make sure your arguments are clear, don't worry about talking too fast or using jargon, just debate to the best of your ability.

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

Hey everyone! I'm a senior at Midtown High School in Atlanta, GA, and have experience in both Policy and PF. I'm a pretty traditional judge and mainly want to see good persuasion and a direct clash with the other team's ideas throughout the round.

General Preferences

1. I'm generally Tech > Truth, but if something by the opposing team is dropped, you need to tell me that and explain why that matters for the round.
2. Signposting is hard, but please try your best to do it. I can understand pretty fast speaking, but don't spread.
3. Please time yourselves. I give some leniency on speeches but I won't flow past about 7 seconds after time.
4. Collapsing in the summary and FF is fine, but you need to briefly defend your argument if the other team runs a turn.
5. The second rebuttal speaker should frontline (defend against the opponent's attacks on their case in the first rebuttal). If the second rebuttal speaker does not frontline, then the opponent has to bring this up in the proceeding speech and explain its implications for the round.
6. Throughout the round, you should try to extend your warrants, especially in the summary speeches. It doesn't need to be long, but just enough so that I understand the basis behind your claim.
7. I don't flow crossfire but rather watch it to help me determine speaker points. If something important is said, I strongly encourage you to bring it up in your proceeding speech(es).
8. Weighing in summary and final focus is super important. At the end of the round, if I buy the links to both sides' impacts, I will generally look to which side weighed the impacts better to determine the winner. I like it when people weigh using the acronym MRT (Magnitude-Risk-Timeframe).
9. Be respectful to your opponents. Shake hands after.
10. Have fun!!

Please speak clearly, concisely, and slow enough that I can understand. Supporting your claims with factual evidence is a must. Be prepared on the topic, it is apparent when you are not. Have passion which will sway my vote. Attack the other competitor's claims with reason and evidence. Tell me what arguments you have refuted and why you win the argument. Christina.Cazzola@cobbk12.org

I'm a parent judge who appreciate

1- Clear arguments and contentions. Call them out clearly.

2- Reduced spreading. The faster you speak the less I understand of your argument.

3- Respect to your teammate and your opponent.

4- Weighing. Tell me why your contentions outweigh those of your opponent

Updated January 2024 for Barkley Forum

Dr. Brice Ezell – Debate Coach, The Lovett School

Speechdrop is preferred, but if it's email do add me to the chain -- my email is brice.ezell@lovett.org

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate in California and nationally for my four years in high school, and another four years in the WUDC format at George Fox University. My PhD, though in English, centered on philosophy, so I’m comfortable and familiar with much of the critical/theoretical literature used in theory-heavy LD cases. At Lovett, I coach LD and PF, though I mostly judge the former. (For Public Forum debaters: scroll to the second-to-last section of this paradigm for PF stuff, though note that a lot of my thinking in the bulk of the paradigm applies to PF as well.)

The TL;DR below should honestly suffice for most folks. The page below is long, I know, but I treat this paradigm like a running document where I put out answers to questions I get more than once, so that hopefully this page gets to a place where it'd answer basically any question before the debate happens, to save the debaters any time in asking me questions before the round. My general tip would be if your question boils down to one debate jargon term (e.g. "skep" or "RVI"), search that term on the page and -- ideally -- I'll have something written.

TL;DR Summary of Everything in this Paradigm: In general, I will vote on whatever is most successfully warranted, weighed, and impacted in the round. Arguments can have all sorts of impacts: to the fairness of the debating activity, to the possibility of nuclear war, to violating a universal ethical principle, etc. However you impact your arguments, you also need to sell me on some kind of standard by which I am to evaluate the in-round impacts. This doesn’t mean you have to use the old-school value/criterion structure, but rather that you as part of your weighing need to tell me the yardstick by which to measure all the in-round impacts. Absent any clear standard from the debaters I will default to a post-AC utility calculus (meaning: I assume the AFF happens, and then I weigh the impacts claimed in the round by both sides) – though, hopefully, my judging doesn’t get to that point.

Tech > Truth?: Yes, though when I'm listening to and flowing your arguments, they need to, at some level, make sense, i.e. tags need to be clearly articulated and internally incoherent. So, for example, if you're running a really out-there K or otherwise philosophically inclined argument, explain what key terms mean and what they look like applied to the debate at hand, even if you think I know the body of literature from which you're drawing. To give one example, run a psychoanalysis K in front of me, but if you read some tagline that's like "The alternative is to run towards the Real," like... I'll flow it, but I don't know what "run towards the real" means unless your tag or card gives me some explanation of what that would look like. You shouldn't be clarifying key claims of a case only in the rebuttals.

Speed?: Yes, I’m fine with it. My main request, though, is that you slow down and are very clear when reading your contention taglines and names/dates of your cards. If, however, one competitor in a round is fine with speed and the other isn't, I'd prefer that speed not be used.

Performance Cases: As it happens, my PhD specialty was in drama/theatre, so in a very real sense performance cases are, in theory, a perfect intersection of my interests. With that said, I definitely hold performance cases to a higher standard than most lines of argumentation one could take in an LD round, even the more out-there Ks. This is a category where I like to be surprised -- hell, that's part of the value of performance cases in general -- but the main thing I would stress is that a performance case should be delivered from a position of genuine and substantial critique, not merely the novelty of the performance itself. I remember back in my debating days that when people would talk about performance cases, it was almost like the critical-intellectual equivalent of shock jockery: "Oh, they'll never see this coming!" And sure, there is a surprise-based strategic value to performance argumentation, but considering the causes to which performances cases are so often put in service -- e.g. feminism, Queer rights, combating anti-Blackness, etc -- taking a performance strategy that feels solely motivated by how "surprising" it, to me, feels like a disservice to how important those causes are. So, put simply: if you want to run a performance case in front of me, you better deliver it like you're living the truth of what you're saying, not simply that you're picking something because of how avant-garde it is. A performance case should feel like a unique approach to persuasion, not an evasion of it for the sake of leaving your opponent befuddled.

Also, just a general note for those running performance cases: make sure you understand what the word "performative" means.

What Do I Not Like? (Really: What Arguments am I Skeptical Of?)

Like any judge I’m not bias-free, but I do try to keep myself as open as possible to learning new things from the debaters I judge, so I don’t really feel comfortable drawing a hard line excluding classes of arguments. That said, in the spirit of honesty, I’ll list some categories of argument for which I have a higher degree of skepticism:

*RVIs: Have never voted on one. Doesn’t mean I couldn’t vote on one, but in general I find the ones I have heard thin on face, and I tend to buy the “you don’t vote AFF based on the mere fact of their fairness” response.

*Disclosure theory arguments: This take may be a product of my debate experience, back when disclosure was less common and/or rarely practiced: I have yet to be sold on the claim that not disclosing cases withholds debate to such a pernicious degree that I’m meant to vote against the non-disclosing debater. Doesn’t mean that a particularly persuasive debater couldn’t sell me otherwise, but I think of all the theory arguments out there, disclosure’s the one where I have the highest threshold.

*Extinction:The old cliche of debate. You can run extinction in front of me, but just know that any debater with good analytic skills to sever the link chain connection between event X and extinction will probably do a good enough job to make me, at very minimum, skeptical of an extinction scenario, and most likely just not buy it. Most cards used to make the extinction claim aren't actually saying what debaters think they say, and I think the desire to try to boil down rounds to "who can save us from the end of the world?" creates a real race to the bottom argumentatively, frankly. And I just don't understand why certain impacts that could more plausibly follow from typical LD topics "aren't good enough" for the weighing: war, genocide, environmental degradation... these are all really bad things! Nuke war isn't quite as far fetched as extinction, but note that nuclear war doesn't *automatically* mean that the whole species goes extinct. Again, even in the hypothetical case of a localized nuclear conflict (i.e. between two neighboring countries), preventing that alone would be a really good impact, even if the conflict wouldn't spill over! I am more likely to buy a less "world-ending disaster" impact that's well-linked than a weaker-linked, far-fetched impact even if it's more disastrous.

*"Util because pleasure/pain are inherent" (AKA: "Moen 16: doesn't say what you think it does"): I am not anti-util – it’d be pretty hard to be in competitive debating, where utility is such a natural (and good!) weighing mechanism. But I will say I find most presentations of util by LD debaters very unsophisticated. Util comes in many shapes and sizes, and in running a util framework you should specify the type of util to which one is committing themselves, and explain why said framework makes sense for your case/the topic. (E.g. act util or rule util; specifying if your calculus is “maximizing pleasure/minimizing pain” or “greatest good for the greatest number” – these are all different things, and come with different commitments). I find the prevalence of the pleasure/pain binary in framework cards very odd; if you’re arguing, say, that China should maximize its environmental policy, “pleasure” and “pain” are weird metrics to use. Long and short of it: if you naturally default to a utilitarian-style calculus in your case writing, that’s fine, but put some actual work into it. I’ve heard so many shallow util frameworks to the point that now I’m somewhat numb to them.

*"Death good": An unusual number of debaters have asked me about this line of reasoning lately. I suppose I could vote for this argument, but just know that different kinds of arguments have different sorts of evidentiary burdens baked into them. Meaning: while I am open to most arguments one could make in a round, I do not have to treat “actually, death good” as equally plausible a line of reasoning as, “We should pass single-payer healthcare so that we can increase the number of insured people.” “Death good” or “actually we’re in the matrix” are bolder arguments to make, and bolder arguments require more robust proofs. That doesn’t mean I dislike these arguments; far from it, I really enjoy it when debaters take big swings, especially in out-rounds. But just know that ambitious cases require a higher degree of intellectual sophistication to run, meaning you can’t just cut the “death good” case the way you would, say, a stock plan-based case.

*Time skew arguments: In contrast to my generally "I'll vote on whatever's warranted" stance, here's maybe one place I'll be curmudgeonly: time skew arguments (e.g. "1AR's only four minutes!" "As the NEG I only speak twice!") are incredibly corny, and I can basically imagine no case where I'd vote on one. To be fair to the people who have run this in front of me, most of the time this is just an additional piece of warranting under a theory arg, so it's not as if this line of thinking is replete in most cases I'm hearing now. But this kind of complaint, to me, is pretty whiny. Debate, like any game, has rules and regulations, and the trade-off in LD's pretty basic: AFF gets more speeches, but NEG's speeches are longer. Given how many people continue to participate in this activity, I find it pretty dubious to say that the speech times are so unfair as to be a theoretical warrant in-round, especially given spreading.

*Presumption: In keeping with time skew, since that's so often used in this line of argument: I do not have a default presumption standard. I'm willing to hear arguments about presumption, but I'm of the belief that these are unnecessarily defensive arguments to include in constructive speeches, as they signal to me, "Judge, if this round is a total mess, and you can't possibly adjudicate what you have on the flow, vote AFF/NEG for x, y, and z reasons." Rhetorically, this does not instill much confidence in what you're doing with the constructive. Where I could see presumption making more sense is in refutation, if clash between arguments has reached a point of total murkiness. With that said, though, I'd rather there be big, clearly defined clash rather than pre-fiat discussions of the positionality of the AFF and NEG in an LD round. Put more directly, if it seems like your strategy is first and foremost togo for presumption, I'm definitely going to be annoyed.

A Note on "Tricks"

I am not entirely clear on what constitutes a "trick"; the contents of that set are somewhat ambiguous to me. (A consequence, perhaps, of never having gone to debate camp.) I've heard ordinary truth-testing cases described as "tricks" even though they strike me as just normal truth-testing-style cases. Same for some skep arguments as well; depending on how one runs it, I don't automatically see skep as inherently abusive/"tricksy," but when people have described tricks to me skep often features. (As someone who very much enjoys reading skeptical philosophy, I'd like to think that skep, run well in the right context, might actually be rewarding.)

If by "tricks," however, you mean "some ultra-fine technicality argument that squirrels the round to the point that my definitions basically say it's impossible for the other side of the debate to win categorically," then I will say: yes, I find such strategy annoying. As a comment about debate more broadly rather than just about tricks specifically: I reward debaters for going toward the debate, rather than running away from it. Debates, almost by definition, are best when two robustly presented sides clash with/weigh against each other, so any move to make the debate hopelessly stacked for one side will put you on my bad side.

This doesn't mean that I prefer, say, whole-res affs uniformly, as I also am likely to give high speaks to debaters who showcase quality topic research, which very often involves degrees of narrowing for case-writing (especially on Policy-esque topics like the 2024 Jan/Feb topic on West Asia/North Africa). To shamelessly plagiarize Potter Stewart, when it comes to cases that narrow for the sake of a richer debate versus narrowing to give the opposing side as little ground as possible, "I know it when I see it."

Evidence/A Brief “Old Man Yells at Cloud” Rant on Case Writing

My general policy is that unless I know a card that's being used and it sounds off in the round, or if the evidence is cut in such a way as to be unclear, I won't comb through all the evidence when making my RFD, barring a dispute in-round about a piece of evidence's validity or cutting. Put shortly, unless you give me reasons to doubt your handling of your evidence, I will honor the arguments in-round as presented. I ask to be added to the chain/Speechdrop just so that I have a record in case of such an aforementioned dispute.

There has long been a trend in debate of treating a cut card as automatic "evidence" for something. The important thing to remember is that the cards are not your case; your case should be making its own argument(s), for which the cards are support. I would hope that in constructing cases that debaters are taking as much time on their contention taglines, framework warrants, and overall structure as they are cutting their evidence. Thin case-writing (that is, little time on contention/subpoint tags and overall argument structure) has been a problem for as long as I’ve been in debate, but it does seem to have gotten worse. The framework, contentions, plan texts, etc – meaning, all the stuff that the debater themselves creates – should shine, as that’s where the debater’s personality can most come through. The cards just demonstrate how well you do (or don’t) make the argument that you yourself are writing.

Stray Things

*I prefer immediate post-round disclosure of result if possible. If for some reason it isn't depending on tournament rules (thankfully these instances seem rare now), know you can find me after the round to ask about an RFD, but if you wish to do so, make sure you find me ASAP, as I'll be less detailed if I'm several rounds removed from your debate. Should you want an oral RFD post-round in the event where I can't give one immediately, find your opponent from the round so I can speak to you both at the same time.

*I don't disclose speaks. Do not ask in-round for higher speaks for doing X, Y, Z, etc. Speaks are my own consideration.

*I expect that debaters keep their own time, but I will time during the round to ensure everyone's honest.

*I'm cool with flex prep.

*I am not anti-theory by any means -- some people really do be breaking the rules (such as the "rules" are) -- but I would call myself a "minimum theory" judge, meaning that the theory should not come across as a way of avoiding the resolutional debate. I know debate topics can be imperfect (no disrepect, NSDA), but theory, to me, exists to ensure debaters are being truly fair and educational. An overabundance of theory, to me, can often come across as a refusal to engage with the substance afforded by the resolution.

*I am not a fan of the strategy wherein a debater takes a stray line from an AC or NC card and tries to blow it up in the rebuttals if it isn't directly refuted by the opposing speaker. Even if I can technically flow it as a drop, I'm generally of the belief that if you're going to make a big deal out of a specific argument/detail, you need to flag it as such in your constructive. I like clash between clearly presented, bold arguments; I'm less inclined to trickery for trickery's sake, even if you're technically extending arguments fairly.

*Don't just say "my opponent dropped this argument, so extend it"; impact all arguments, even drops. I do not immediately think to myself, "By gum, they've given up the debate!" the moment I hear that an argument has been dropped.

*Cross-x is binding. Use it well.

*Nothing is more boring than a debate that collapses into the most generic version of the "utilitarianism/consequentialism vs. deontology/principles" discussion. Avoid these, please. If a framework debate gets into this territory naturally, try to make a case for why your specific version of util or deontology holds up best, rather than relitigate the broad debate that we all know and hate.

*I am not terribly persuaded by arguments that feel so stock/generic that you have no investment in them. Even conventional T shells should be presented like they are specially applicable to the debate that's happening in the room.

*The only things that will make me drop you outright are things like: egregious card-cutting which leads to misrepresentation/distortion of sources (having competed myself, I know what some will try to get away with) and morally outrageous arguments like "genocide/racism/sexism/homophobia good." Even though debate is about clash, it is an activity that must include all, so I view any arguments that aim to exclude people from the activity as a massive problem.

What About Public Forum? I am generally of the belief that PF should be insulated from the "circuit-ification" that's endemic to the other major debating formats. A PF round really should be viewable by all, including the mythical "average person on the street." This isn't because I'm a "PF originalist," or am against spread/circuit debate -- far from it. Rather, I just think the strictures of the form (four minute speeches max, topics that change every month) make "circuit PF" a kind of contradiction in terms. PF should be about a clearly defined and persuasively delivered (in the traditional sense) clash on a current events topic with which a parent uninitiated to debating could follow. Though PF doesn't have the value framework of LD, your weighing mechanism for my decision in the round -- these are often called "voters" or "voting issues" -- should still be clear by the time you get to the Final Focus speeches.

And to reiterate something I said above, but in a PF-specific fashion: the crossfires, especially the grand crossfires, should be the most electric part of the round. Please don't turn cross-x into a back-and-forth of basic fact-finding questions: really get into the debate there!

One specific note on the rules of PF debating, since this issue has come up in some rounds for my debaters: the CON is not required to defend the status quo. Though plan texts are verboten in this format (for the PRO and CON), the CON is allowed to advocate (without a specific plan-text) alternatives to the PRO advocacy. For example, with the recent student loans topic ("The United States federal government should forgive all federal student loan debt"): the CON, in that instance, is not required to defend a world with no student loan forgiveness or only the types of forgiveness that exist in the status quo; they could say, as a generalized claim, "We support some targeted means-testing style forgiveness programs, those that target historically disenfranchised groups in America." There couldn't be, however, a specific plan iterating the details of that advocacy. I'm not sure why so many people think PF would be set up to where all debates are "X or the status quo," and in any event there's certainly nothing in the rulebook for PF to suggest that the CON can't offer alternatives in the same generalized way that the PRO advocates for a given case.

Note on Speaks: Unless a specific tournament specifies a house preference for its speaker point allocations, here's how I award speaks:

30: You changed my mind about what's possible in the activity of debating, or did something truly revelatory with the topic. Your speaking style exhibits a sophistication that would get an attention of a full theatre.

29-29.9: You're a top-tier speaker and thinker, one I'd expect to be in late elims at the tournament. You are thinking about the topic at a very high level.

28-28.9: You gave a speech that put considerably more thought into the topic than the stock cases I'm likely to hear on any given topic. Your speaking style shows confidence and elegance.

27-27.9: This is what I call the "perfect average;" to be specific, perfectly average for me is 27.5. You did good work in presenting and constructing your case, even if the presentation wasn't particularly flashy.

26-26.9: You generally presented a coherent case, but with not much sophistication either in delivery or in quality of argumentation.

25-25.9: Your case and/or delivery were unclear, and your arguments poorly warranted.

Under 25: You did something profoundly offensive.

Things that Help or Harm Speaks

Things that Help Speaks

*Confidence! Especially in CX. Using CX to put your opponent on the defensive is a must.
*Knowing your case. You should be able to state the warrants/theses of your cards as if they were your own words.
*Using really good analytics arguments in rebuttals. Debate shouldn't just be "AFF reads card, NEG reads card to counter."
*Eye contact. Doesn't need to be constant, of course, but it should feel like you're addressing a person, not a computer screen.
*Writing a case where your words principally, not your sources, do the talking.
*Tasteful use of humor that rhetorically enhances your argument.
*Coming up with angles on the topic that are unique and genuinely thoughtful (meaning: not novel for novelty's sake).
*Similarly: a really well-written and detailed "stock" case can be just as impressive depending on how it's wielded. To give one example: for me, at tournaments at the highest level, a really artful whole-res AFF done well is arguably more impressive than a more niche plan AFF, as it shows the debater's willingness to take on a bigger burden and do so persuasively.
*Rebuttal that shows that you have done topic research outside of just your immediate casework.

Things that Harm Speaks

*Using cross-x solely for fact-finding (e.g. "What was your contention 1 again?")
*In rebuttal, saying "I have a card" or "my card says so" when your opponent challenges the claim being made in a card. (Meaning: the fact that you have a card is not automatically proof of the card's rightness.)
*Rudeness/condescension, especially if it is unearned.
*Contention taglines that are barely developed, no matter how good the cards below them are. (E.g. Just saying "Nuke war" for a tag.)
*Running an argument that it feels like you haven't put any thought behind. (Classic example: the NEG running T just because you can. If you kick out of it under the lightest pressure [or none at all] in the 1NR, I will probably roll my eyes.)
*While I am not opposed to speed, if you spread for the purpose of a bunch of thin argumentation, I'm going to be less inclined to give high speaks. To put it simply: justify your speed.
*Unironically saying "market solves" with no elaboration or evidence.

Please be respectful to your opponents.

I don't prefer spreading.

Make sure to time yourself.

Have Fun :)

If you're running an email chain, please add me: Andrewgollner@gmail.com

he/him

About me: I debated one year of PF and three years of policy at Sequoyah High, and I debated three year of college policy at the University of Georgia. I was a 2N that generally runs policy offcase positions but, especially earlier in my debate career, I ran many critical positions. I'll try to be expressive during the round so that you can discern how I am receiving your arguments.

Judge Preferences: On a personal level, please be kind to your opponents. I dislike it when a team is unnecessarily rude or unsportsmanlike. I am completely willing to discuss my decision about a round in between rounds, so please ask me if you want me to clarify my decision or would like advice. You can email me any questions you have.

FOR PF/LD:

I am primarily a policy judge. This means

1. I am more comfortable with a faster pace. While I don't like the idea of spreading in PF and LD I can handle a faster pace.

2. I am decently technical. If an argument is dropped point it out, make sure I can draw a clean line through your speeches.

3. I am less used to theory backgrounds in your form of debate, slow down and explain these.

4. Ask me any specific questions you have.

FOR POLICY:

I recognize that my role is to serve as a neutral arbiter without predispositions towards certain arguments, but as this goal is elusive the following are my gut reactions to positions. I strive to ensure that any position (within reason, obviously not obscene or offensive) is a possible path to victory in front of myself.

CP: I love a well written CP which is tailored to your opponent's solvency advocate and that can be clearly explained and is substantiated by credible evidence. If your CP is supported by 1AC solvency evidence, I will be very impressed. Generic CPs are fine, I've read a ton of them, but the more you can at least explain your CP in the context of the affirmative's advantages the more likely you are to solve for their impact scenarios.

DA: Make sure to give a quick overview of the story during the neg block to clarify the intricacies of your position. If, instead of vaguely tagline making a turns case arg like "climate turns econ, resource shortages", you either read and later extend a piece of evidence or spend 10 to 15 seconds analytically creating a story of how climate change exasperates resource shortages and causes mass migrations which strain nation's financial systems, then I will lend far more risk to the disadvantage turning the case. Obviously the same goes for Aff turns the DA. I will also weigh smart analytical arguments on the disad if the negative fails to contest it properly. I'm also very persuaded when teams contest the warrants of their opponents evidence or point out flaws within their opponents evidence, whether it's a hidden contradiction or an unqualified author.

T: I've rarely gone for topicality but I have become increasingly cognizant of incidents in which I likely should have. My gut reaction is that competing interpretations can be a race to the bottom, but I have personally seen many affirmatives which stray far enough from the topic to warrant a debate centered over the resolution in that instance.

K: I used to run Ks pretty frequently in high school but I run them far less frequently now. I'm likely not deep in your literature base so be sure to explain your position and your link story clearly.

FW: My gut feeling is that debate is a game and that it should be fair, but I have seen many rounds where the affirmative team has done an excellent job of comparing the pedagogy of both models and won that their model is key for X type of education or accessibility there of. However, I am persuaded that a TVA only needs to provide reasonable inroads to the affirmatives research without necessarily having to actually solve for all of the affirmative. I do find the response that negs would only read DAs and ignore/"outweigh" the case to be effective - try to add some nuance to this question of why negs would or wouldn't still need to grapple with the case.

Non-traditional Aff: I've always run affs with USFG plan texts, but that doesn't mean that these positions are non-starters. I will be much more receptive to your affirmative if it is intricately tied to the topic area, even if it does refuse to engage the resolution itself for whichever reasons you provide.

Theory: I generally think 2 condo is good, more than that and things start to get a bit iffy.

Most importantly, please be kind to your opponents and have a good time.

lay pf judge (hire) for about 1 year now
email: jayson.tgonzalez@gmail.com - *don't* add me to the chain unless I ask
please let me know who is who before we start

stuff:
please give me an off-time roadmap
fine with speaking fast but if you waste time stumbling over your own words I'll tell you to slow down
just assume i dont have topic knowledge
i will judge cross
extend your arguments through all speeches and frontline
explain your weighing
you handle coin flip amongst yourselves
please actually use FF to explain why you win not just summary 2: electric boogaloo :)
i keep track of prep and time and speeches but I EXPECT YOU TO ASWELL
also im pretty lenient with prep, within like 3-5 second margins I'll give it to you (don't abuse)

speaks rewarded/deducted:
if you're calm and coherent (not stumbling constantly) you'll *probably* get over 28.0
if you make me laugh +0.1-0.2
if you shout over each other during cross -0.2-0.3
infighting with your teammate -0.5 ( :O ) let's be civil y'all
stealing prep -1
if you accidentally say you affirm/negate when arguing for the opposite side -0.000000001

I am a debate team coach. Please keep your own time. You may speak at whatever speed you are comfortable with but keep in mind that if you speak too quickly your points may be missed. I will be looking at which team was best able to promote their position while negating the opposing position.

Hey guys, here is a little about me, as well as how I judge. :)

I am a Junior Nursing student at Kennesaw State University and I debated in Public Forum for three years.

I want to see a respectful debate, I will not tolerate rude comments to each other or overall being rude. I am all for a heated crossfire and debate but just be respectful of each other's time as well as who is speaking.

I will also not tolerate any cheating of any kind. I have reported teams in the past and I will not hesitate to do it again.

Overall I want to see a good debate, tell me why I should vote for you. I would like you to weigh through out the whole debate and in final focus I would like hear the voters specifically. This will make it easier for me to judge and see what were the most important points of the debate.

I will only flow crossfire if I hear something important come up like if you concede a point or your opponent does. Do not rely on crossfire for important points, bring them up again in speeches if you want me to vote on it.

I am okay with spreading to an extent, if I can obviously not understand what you are saying I will not be able to flow.

Lastly, please keep your own time.

* Quality of argumentation

* I don't like people getting angry, personal, or condescending during debate

Maintain a respectful and civil tone throughout the debate.
Please be clear and organized in presenting your arguments.
Use logical progression in your speeches.
Support your arguments with credible evidence and sound reasoning.
I will place a strong emphasis on the quality of your evidence and the strength of your logic.

Engage with your opponent's arguments effectively.
Address their key points and demonstrate why your position is stronger.
In the end, I encourage to collapse on one or two points as to why your argument is better than the opponents.

Effective time management: Stay within the allotted time for your speeches.

After the debate, I may provide constructive feedback, however this is prerogative.

Debate should be about dialog and not confrontation. I realize people get excited when stating and reinforcing a point of view, but please let’s keep it civilized.

Be mindful of your allotted time and articulate your points clearly and concisely.

I like to see eye contact, knowledge of your topic, and interchange between debaters when proving/disproving points.

I am not impressed by debaters repeating the same data points constantly until the allotted time is exhausted or reading a computer screen at 200 miles an hour; rapid speaking is acceptable if it is understandable.

If you want to win, persuade me into viewing the argument from your point of view; you may do this by demonstrating knowledge breadth and depth about the topic you are defending. It is not only about stating your position on the resolution, but you must also be able to defend it and prove to me why your position is the best position during the crossfires.

Cards may be sent to ntillero@comcast.net